Election 2024 Part III: Out with the old!

[Gori the Grey]

One more thought about Trump's comment about how the debate crowd went crazy when the moderators fact checked him.

Even as an invented scenario it doesn't make sense. Imagine there was a crowd for the debate. Imagine it was Trump friendly. They might notice that he was being fact-checked more than Harris, but what would they do with that information that would constitute "going crazy"? They couldn't really boo or anything. Fact checks are pretty quick, so admittedly the ninth or eleventh time the moderator fact-checks Trump, they'll be pretty upset about it, but they barely have time to do anything that constitutes "going crazy" before the moderators have moved on to their next question.

So it ends up being a little like his old "a lot of people are saying"; he just needs to experience his own thoughts as though they are validated by crowds of other people.

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

The only way to leave the endless cycle of a small number of swing states deciding the US election outcome every 4th year, is to abolish the electoral college and introduce true Democracy, where every single vote counts no matter the state.

Totally off-topic, but even if the current system is flawed, strict simple majority seems very bad.

People in less populated states must have more voice. If you think that's a big deal, you can move there.

 

[Ajidica]

Totally off-topic, but even if the current system is flawed, strict simple majority seems very bad.

People in less populated states must have more voice. If you think that's a big deal, you can move there.

Why is that? Is a person in Wyoming more important than a person in Minnesota that their vote should be given more weight?

 

[Cutlass]

People in less populated states must have more voice. If you think that's a big deal, you can move there.

Why? Why should the minority necessarily have a systemic advantage over the majority?

 

[Voidwalkin]

As this campaign goes on, I think Trump is gonna lose.

I think you could fairly say that politically, his Supreme Court choices will hurt the Republicans for generations. Dodd is disastrous for them. If he had made his nominees swear not to go at Roe, he'd be in a much stronger position.

It's odd that he, of all people, was the man to appoint the Christian moralists to the bench. Shouldn't he have realized? Just so strange.

 

[Cutlass]

As this campaign goes on, I think Trump is gonna lose.

I think you could fairly say that politically, his Supreme Court choices will hurt the Republicans for generations. Dodd is disastrous for them. If he had made his nominees swear not to go at Roe, he'd be in a much stronger position.

It's odd that he, of all people, was the man to appoint the Christian moralists to the bench. Shouldn't he have realized? Just so strange.

Trump don't care for consequences. Because consequences is what happens to other people.

Trump needed the evangelical vote. The price of that vote was the promise of judges and justices who would put their religion ahead of the law. And the judges and justices picked do that because of their conviction that God's Law is higher than man's law. And so violating their oaths of office is not wrong, because it's done for a higher purpose.

They're lying to themselves, of course. But they'll never see it. They think they did the right thing.

But Trump simply didn't care about that. It doesn't affect him. He gets some Faux News hottie preggers, he'll just send her to Switzerland for an abortion. And even if that goes public, it won't cost him, because he's still better for the anti-abortion crowd than a Democrat would be.

 

[Voidwalkin]

The price of that vote was the promise of judges and justices who would put their religion ahead of the law. And the judges and justices picked do that because of their conviction that God's Law is higher than man's law. And so violating their oaths of office is not wrong, because it's done for a higher purpose.

They're lying to themselves, of course. But they'll never see it. They think they did the right thing.

But Trump simply didn't care about that. It doesn't affect him. He gets some Faux News hottie preggers, he'll just send her to Switzerland for an abortion. And even if that goes public, it won't cost him, because he's still better for the anti-abortion crowd than a Democrat would be.

I think he knew it'd hurt, but didn't think it'd matter. Definitely not for him personally, but politically, I think he thought he'd make up for it in other areas. I have a feeling he always knew it would be shaky. He just thought he'd win anyway.

Probably not gonna turn out that way. He coulda just nominated guys he knew weren't gonna hit Roe. Barrett? I have to believe Trump could spot that deep, deep Catholicism. Everybody can.

I wonder if ultimately he appointed them because his wacko advisors suggested it, and he was too lazy to hunt a non-Roe hating conservative judge down given the likely bureaucratic resistance from those closest to him. That would be pretty characteristically Trump. I think he probably just didn't wanna find the guy who'd find him the guy, because he'd rather golf.

 

[stfoskey12]

Totally off-topic, but even if the current system is flawed, strict simple majority seems very bad.

People in less populated states must have more voice. If you think that's a big deal, you can move there.

I would prefer a simple majority, but even if small states were weighted more heavily, they should divide their electoral votes proportionally instead of winner take all. Presidential candidates currently have no reason to campaign in states like Mississippi or Connecticut that have voted for the same party for over 30 years.

 

[Cutlass]

CalvinBall

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4891336-north-carolina-chapel-hill-republicans-voter-id/

North Carolina judge rejects GOP request to bar students from using digital IDs to vote
by Filip Timotija - 09/20/24 3:54 PM ET

A North Carolina judge has rejected Republicans’ request to bar students and school employees from using digital identification cards to vote.

Wake Superior Court Judge Keith Gregory denied on Thursday the temporary restraining order from the Republican National Committee (RNC) and the North Carolina Republican Party, which sought to prevent the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s (UNC) students and employees from using digital IDs as a way to comply with the state voter ID law.

The judge said that North Carolina’s voting law does not forbid the use of digital IDs as the plaintiffs argued in their lawsuit filed last week.

“Plaintiffs’ contention that state law forbids approval of digital or electronic photo identification, like the UNC Mobile One Card, as means of proving one’s identity for voting is incorrect,” Gregory said in the order.

Republicans sued the North Carolina State Board of Elections last week over its recent 3-2 decision to permit the use of UNC-issued digital IDs for voting, arguing they did not comply with the state’s voter law and that identification for voting should be in “physical, tangible” form. They also contended the decision would allow ineligible voters to cast votes.

The trial judge did not agree, stating that UNC digital IDs, which are available on Apple devices, assist registered voters when voting at the ballot box.

“Plaintiffs have not advanced any credible link between the State Board’s approval of Mobile One Cards and heightened risk of ineligible voters casting illegal Votes,” Gregory said. “An unqualified voter cannot use Mobile One Card to register to vote or vote. The Mobile One Card simply helps already registered voters prove their identity when they cast Ballot.”

The Hill has reached out to the Republicans’ attorney for comment.

The UNC One Card is the main form of ID given by the school; employees and students can also get physical IDs. The ruling came as in-person voting is set to kick off in mid-October.

The Tar Heel State is likely to be a major battleground in the 2024 presidential election. Former President Trump won it by around 1.3 percent in 2020, but Democrats have increasingly made it a target.

Trying to pull off last minute changes to the rules, so that others don't have the time to comply with the new ones.

Again.

 

[EvaDK]

Totally off-topic, but even if the current system is flawed, strict simple majority seems very bad.

People in less populated states must have more voice. If you think that's a big deal, you can move there.

The most effective way to increase self-determination in the individual US states and make voters heard, is to decentralise the federal government and hand over more responsibilities and funds to the states.

The electoral college very likely also increases voter apathy, because there's probably a lot of red voters in Democratic states that don't bother voting at Presidential elections since their votes are nullified anyway (winner take is all). Same vice versa with blue voters in Republican states. This would be much less of a problem in a system, where every vote cast is counted and registered no matter who casts it and where they live.

 

[Takhisis]

I reckon that close race states such as Iowa flipping, presupposes that the GOP nominates a Fascist clown, convicted fraud and conman like Trump, unacceptable to moderate voters leaning Republican. Had they nominated a moderate Republican instead, he or she would likely be leading the polls.

So, in a sort of twisted logic, Trumps and MAGAs grip on the GOP is actually increasing the odds for a Democrat in the White House until 2028.

This would be the law of diminishing returns in action.

 

[Sommerswerd]

The most effective way to increase self-determination in the individual US states and make voters heard, is to decentralise the federal government and hand over more responsibilities and funds to the states.

The electoral college very likely also increases voter apathy, because there's probably a lot of red voters in Democratic states that don't bother voting at Presidential elections since their votes are nullified anyway (winner take is all). Same vice versa with blue voters in Republican states. This would be much less of a problem in a system, where every vote cast is counted and registered no matter who casts it and where they live.

One big problem with that, is that slaves can't vote, so in rural states...

 

[Cutlass]

The most effective way to increase self-determination in the individual US states and make voters heard, is to decentralise the federal government and hand over more responsibilities and funds to the states.

Ummm. Doing too much decentralization is actually the problem in the US...

 

[EnglishEdward]

Why ?

It would seem to me that one of the great merits of the united states is that if one is not
happy in one state, one can move to another state where things are run differently.

 

[Joij21]

Ummm. Doing too much decentralization is actually the problem in the US...

More decentralization would actually prevent the federal government from engaging in non-stop interventionist wars.

The US could also make use of limiting the power of the executive branch more, such as transferring the selection of supreme court justices to the house of representatives.

 

[Cutlass]

Why ?

It would seem to me that one of the great merits of the united states is that if one is not
happy in one state, one can move to another state where things are run differently.

Because not everyone can move. And there are some things no one should have to move for. No one should have to move because the state governments have racist policies. Or because their rabid hatred of women's freedom endangers lives. Or any of a number of other things.

The states do not protect civil rights. Either the federal government does it, or no one has rights.

The states are also both more corrupt, and more incompetent, than the federal government. The joint federal state programs are all more badly run than the federal programs.

And then there's the race to the bottom om regulations. The states are far worse on worker rights and environmental protection than the federal government.

 

[Cutlass]

More decentralization would actually prevent the federal government from engaging in non-stop interventionist wars.

Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan approve of this reasoning.

 

[EnglishEdward]

I don't buy the what amounts to something like 'bigger is better argument'.

Neither Nazi Germany nor Imperial Japan practiced decentralisation.

 

[Cutlass]

I don't buy the what amounts to something like 'bigger is better argument'.

Neither Nazi Germany nor Imperial Japan practiced decentralisation.

You missed the point I was responding to.

 

[Takhisis]

Neither Nazi Germany nor Imperial Japan practiced decentralisation.

Specifically, ‘America First’ was the slogan used to promote keeping the US out of WWII.